DAVID J. WAXSE, Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from John C. Klick, FTI Consulting, Inc., Robert L. Sansom and Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. (doc. 328). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied.
Relevant Factual Background
John C. Klick of FTI Consulting, Inc. ("Klick") and Robert L. Sansom of Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. ("Sansom") (collectively "Klick/Sansom") are two expert witnesses retained by Defendants in this proceeding. On September 26, 2001, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to these two individuals and their respective companies seeking documents relating to retention as experts or consultants to Union Pacific and/or Burlington Northern Santa Fe ("BNSF"). More specifically, and relevant to the pending motion, the following documents were requested in the subpoenas:
Request 1: All documents that refer, reflect or relate to the retention by UP and/or BNSF of Klick/Sansom other than retention in this case.
Request 2: All correspondence, studies, analyses, reports, opinions, and presentations prepared by or for Klick/Sansom relating to UP and/or BNSF other than those in this case.
Request 3: All documents provided or shown to Klick/Sansom by anyone — or provided or shown by Klick/Sansom to anyone — in connection with any services rendered to UP and/or BNSF relating to any subject referenced in Request 2.
Request 4: All notes, letters, outlines, drafts, memoranda, summaries, reports and other documents created by or for Klick/Sansom or at their request in connection with any services rendered to UP and/or BNSF.
Request 5: All documents relating to any analysis, study, report investigation, data compilation or calculations prepared by or for Klick/Sansom in connection with any services rendered to UP and/or BNSF.
The requests have been paraphrased by the Court.
On October 19, 2001, Klick/Sansom served responses to the subpoenas. Basically, Klick/Sansom object to, and therefore refuse to produce, any documents in response to Requests 1-5. In support of their objections, Klick/Sansom state the requests are overly broad on their face. Based on this objection, and after consulting with opposing counsel as required by local rule, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel production of the referenced documents.
Discussion
In support of the argument that Requests 1-5 in the subpoena are overly broad, Klick/Sansom argue (1) the requests fail to reasonably identify with precision the documents sought as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 34; and (2) the requests are overly broad.
Imprecise Requests
Upon review of the requests at issue, the Court agrees with Klick/Sansom with regard to Requests 1,2,3 and 5 and finds such requests are overly broad on their face to the extent that they utilize all-encompassing phrases such as "relate to" or "relating to." "Request[s] shall set forth, either by individual item or by category, the items to be inspected, and describe each with reasonable particularity." Moreover, "[r]equests should be reasonably specific, allowing the respondent to readily identify what is wanted."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b).
Western Resources, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad, No. 00-2043-CM, 2001 WL 1718368, *3 (D.Kan. Dec. 5, 2001) (quoting Audiotext Communications v. U.S. Telecom, Inc., No. 94-2395-GTV, 1995 WL 18759, at *1 (D.Kan. Jan. 17, 1995)).
Courts may find requests overly broad when they are "couched in such broad language as to make arduous the task of deciding which of numerous documents may conceivably fall within [their] scope." Use of broad terms such as "relate to" or "relating to" provides no basis upon which an individual or entity can reasonably determine what documents may or may not be responsive. Here, as in Cotracom, the phrases "relate to" and "relating to" do not modify a specific type of document, but rather all documents; thus, their very use make the requests overly broad on their face.
Id.
Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. V. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. 655, 666 (D.Kan. 1999) (citing Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 197 (D. Kan. 1996)).
Despite the overly broad nature of Requests 1, 2, 3 and 5 on their face due to the "relate to" or "relating to" language, Klick/Sansom have a duty under the federal rules to respond to the extent that discovery requests are not objectionable. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b). Although Plaintiff did utilize omnibus phrases in the requests at issue here, the Court finds the balance of the language used in the requests provides adequate guidance to determine the scope of the requests propounded. Thus, the Court rejects Klick/Sansom's argument that the requests are overly broad, vague and ambiguous to the extent they fail to reasonably identify with precision the documents sought.
Notwithstanding this requirement, the Court will not compel further response when inadequate guidance exists to determine the proper scope of a request for discovery. Cotracom Commodity Trading Co. V. Seaboard Corp., 189 F.R.D. at 666 (citing Schartz v. Unified School Dist. No. 512, No. Civ. A. 95-2491-EEO, 1996 WL 741384, at *1 (D.Kan. Dec. 18, 1996) (addressing duty to answer interrogatories and respond to requests for production); see also, Mackey v. IBP, Inc., 167 F.R.D. 186, 198 (D.Kan. 1996) (addressing duty to answer interrogatory)).
Overly Broad
Given the Court's finding above that Klick/Sansom are able to reasonably identify with precision the scope of documents requested, the Court now will address Klick/Sansom's argument that the scope of the requests — as reasonably identified — are overly broad. Rule 26(b)(1) provides "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter . . . that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Further, "[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." When the discovery sought appears relevant, the individual or entity objecting to the discovery on grounds that a request is overly broad has the burden to support its objection, unless the request is overly broad on its face.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).
Id.
EEOC v. Kansas City Southern Railway, 195 F.R.D. 678, 680 (D.Kan. 2000).
Plaintiff argues the documents requested in the subpoena will allow it to discover the scope of Klick/Sansom's prior relationship with UP and BNSF and may then lead to facts for use in impeaching the experts or demonstrating potential bias. The Court, however, is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument and finds the requests — as currently drafted — are too broadly drawn and the stated objectives are too general. The requests are not limited in time or confined to any discrete subject matter. In comparing the expansive nature of the requests to the much more limited scope of the claims and defenses presented in this lawsuit (including the scope of the expert reports submitted by Klick and Sansom), the Court finds Requests 1-5 to be overly broad on their face.
See Trunk v. Midwest Rubber and Supply Co., 175 F.R.D. 664 (D.Colo. 1997) (although acknowledging Rule 26 provides for broad discovery of experts as to opinions to be offered at trial, court found conclusions and opinions offered in unrelated litigation does not fall within scope of Rule 26 discovery) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.